MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204160106 · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111698

Variation of lignocellulosic biomass structure from torrefaction: A critical review

2021· review· en· W3204160106 on OpenAlexaff
Hwai Chyuan Ong, Kai Yu, Wei‐Hsin Chen, Ma. Katreena Pillejera, Xiaotao Bi, Khanh‐Quang Tran, Anélie Pétrissans, Mathieu Pétrissans

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Cheng Kung UniversityMinistry of Science and Technology, TaiwanMinistry of Education
KeywordsTorrefactionBiomass (ecology)Lignocellulosic biomassBiofuelPulp and paper industryCelluloseEnvironmental sciencePyrolysisThermogravimetric analysisRaw materialLigninMaterials scienceWaste managementChemical engineeringChemistryAgronomyOrganic chemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, torrefaction, a kind of biomass thermal pretreatment technology, has received a great deal of attention due to its effective upgrading performance of biomass. Recent studies have also suggested that the quality of syngas and bio-oil (or biocrude) from the pyrolysis, gasification, and liquefaction of torrefied biomass can be effectively improved. Torrefaction changes the structure of the biomass, the degree of this change depends strongly on the severity of the torrefaction process. To have a better understanding of the impact that torrefaction has on the biomass structure, this study aims to provide a comprehensive and in-depth review of recent advances on this topic. Particular attention is paid to biomass structure analysis through thermogravimetric analysis, scanning electron microscopy, Fourier transform infrared analysis, Brunauer-Emmett-Teller, X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy, and nuclear magnetic resonance. From these analyses, the thermal degradation characteristics of hemicelluloses, cellulose, lignin, and other components in biomass can be recognized. In addition to the elaboration of biomass structure variation from torrefaction, future challenges and perspectives are also underlined. The insights provided in this review are conducive to the further applications of biomass torrefaction for sustainable biofuel production.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations227
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207