MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214626306 · doi:10.18331/brj2022.9.1.5

Exergy sustainability analysis of biomass gasification: a critical review

2022· review· en· W4214626306 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Hossein Shahbeig, Alireza Shafizadeh, Marc A. Rosen, Bert F. Sels

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExergyBiomass (ecology)Exergy efficiencySustainabilityEnvironmental scienceWood gas generatorBiomass gasificationCarbon neutralityGreenhouse gasWaste managementProcess engineeringBiofuelEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass gasification technology is a promising process to produce a stable gas with a wide range of applications, from direct use to the synthesis of value-added biochemicals and biofuels. Due to the high capital/operating costs of the technology and the necessity for prudent management of thermal energy exchanges in the biomass gasification process, it is important to use advanced sustainability metrics to ensure that environmental and other sustainability factors are addressed beneficially. Consequently, various engineering techniques are being used to make decisions on endogenous and exogenous parameters of biomass gasification processes to find the most efficient, viable, and sustainable operations and conditions. Among available approaches, exergy methods have attracted much attention due to their scientific rigor in accounting for the performance, cost, and environmental impact of biomass gasification systems. Therefore, this review is devoted to critically reviewing and numerically scrutinizing the use of exergy methods in analyzing biomass gasification systems. First, a bibliometric analysis is conducted to systematically identify research themes and trends in exergy-based sustainability assessments of biomass gasification systems. Then, the effects of biomass composition, reactor type, gasifying agent, and operating parameters on the exergy efficiency of the process are thoroughly investigated and mechanistically discussed. Unlike oxygen, nitrogen, and ash contents of biomass, the exergy efficiency of the gasification process is positively correlated with the carbon and hydrogen contents of biomass. A mixed gasifying medium (CO2 and steam) provides higher exergy efficiency values. The downdraft fixed-bed gasifier exhibits the highest exergy efficiency among biomass gasification systems. Finally, opportunities and limitations of exergy methods for analyzing sustainability aspects of biomass gasification systems are outlined to guide future research in this domain.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.276 · 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

Citations88
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207