MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156329832 · doi:10.1515/ijcre-2020-0140

Calculations of activation energy and frequency factors for corn leafs pyrolysis using excel solver: new concept

2021· article· en· W3156329832 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Al-Ayed, Mohammad W. Amer, Sura Al-Harahshah, Birgit Maaten, Muhammad Sajjad Ahmed

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActivation energyFrequency factorThermogravimetric analysisKinetic energyKineticsSolverThermodynamicsOrder of reactionChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Energy (signal processing)Range (aeronautics)Physical chemistryMaterials sciencePhysicsReaction rate constantMathematicsStatisticsChromatographyOrganic chemistryMathematical optimizationClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Thermal degradations of biomass corn leaves were studied for kinetic modeling. Thermogravimetric-differential analyzer runs at 5, 10, 20, and 30 °C min −1 heating rates were employed. Apparent activation energy and frequency factor values were calculated for first-order kinetics using several procedures. The procedure of Coats and Redfern showed 28.89 to 31.78 kJ mol −1 apparent activation energy and 15.5 to 157.12 min −1 frequency factor, respectively. Calculation of the apparent activation energy and frequency factor using Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose procedure gave 229.9–364.2 kJ/mol and 8.567 × 10 23 and 1.13 × 10 31 (min −1 ), respectively as the conversion increased from 0.1 to 0.9. The newly introduced excel solver procedure indicates a distribution activation energy over the entire range of conversion. For first-order reaction kinetics, the calculated apparent activation energy magnitudes ranged between 5.0 kJ mol −1 with frequency factor equals to 0.239 and 196.2 kJ mol −1 with frequency factor 2.89 × 10 12 in the studied range. The low or high magnitudes of the calculated activation energy are not associated with a particular value of the conversion. The calculated apparent activation energies are related to the direct solution of the simultaneous equations that constitute the basis of the excel solver.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Chemical Reactor EngineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207