MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4297973383 · doi:10.3390/en15197168

Investigation of Steam Explosion Pretreatment of Sawdust and Oat Straw to Improve Their Quality as Biofuel Pellets

2022· article· en· W4297973383 on OpenAlexaff
Chukwuka Onyenwoke, Lope G. Tabil, Tim Dumonceaux, Duncan Cree, Edmund Mupondwa, Phani Adapa, Chithra Karunakaran

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityCanadian Light Source (Canada)Agriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelletsSawdustStrawPelletSteam explosionUltimate tensile strengthBiomass (ecology)Pulp and paper industryBiofuelMaterials scienceBioenergyMoistureChemistryAgronomyAnimal scienceWaste managementComposite materialBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Steam explosion pretreatment of sawdust and oat straw under mild, medium, and severe conditions was conducted to improve the quality of pellets generated from these feedstocks. This work examined the effects of temperature, time, and moisture content on the mechanical properties of biomass pellets. From the ANOVA conducted, the p-values of the regression models for all the response variables (dimensional stability, tensile strength, and pellet density) studied were significant (p < 0.05), except for the pellet density of steam-pretreated oat straw pellets. The interaction of these three factors did not significantly affect the response variables of oat straw pellets. In addition, the higher heating value (HHV) of treated biomass increased up to a maximum of about 9.5% and 7% as compared with the non-treated sawdust and oat straw, respectively. In addition, an increment of about 3.6-fold and 3.1-fold in pellet tensile strength of steam-pretreated sawdust and oat straw was observed, respectively. Microstructural examination of the pellets from steam-pretreated biomass revealed that the material contained particles that were more closely bonded and featured a cemented surface with fewer pores when compared to particles from untreated oat straw and sawdust.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations24
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207