MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181029913 · doi:10.1111/gcbb.12882

Valorization of tree leaves waste using microwave‐assisted hydrothermal carbonization process

2021· article· en· W3181029913 on OpenAlexaff
Kang Kang, Tianle Zhang, Guotao Sun, Ming-Qiang Zhu, Kankan Li, Dongbing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueGCB Bioenergy · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi ProvinceFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaMinistry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs of the People's Republic of China
KeywordsHydrothermal carbonizationHydrothermal circulationCarbonizationBiomass (ecology)PyrolysisMaterials scienceDegradation (telecommunications)Pulp and paper industryKineticsChemical engineeringActivation energyNuclear chemistryChemistryAgronomyOrganic chemistryScanning electron microscopeComposite materialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fallen leaves of landscape trees, as an emerging biomass waste, were valorized using conventional hydrothermal carbonization (HC) and microwave‐assisted hydrothermal carbonization (MHC) pretreatments, and were comparatively characterized for physicochemical properties and thermal degradation kinetics. The results show that MHC is superior to conventional HC operation, because at 200℃, the MHC process not only gives a higher hydrochar yield (45.09 vs. 39.47 wt%) with significantly reduced energy consumption (0.63 vs. 2.74 MJ g −1 ), but also is more effective in removing K and Si. For isoconversional kinetic analysis, the FWO method provides better results than the KAS method as the latter failed to fit the tree leaves sample ( R 2 < 0.9). The thermal degradation kinetics at high temperatures (>400℃) showed that the hydrochar obtained from the MHC process has a lower average activation energy of ~190 MJ kg −1 than the conventional HC process (~260 MJ kg −1 ). This study reveals the potential for valorization of the landscape tree wastes via the MHC process.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.212
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGCB BioenergySame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207