Potential Application of Canola Hull Fuel Pellets for the Production of Synthesis Gas and Hydrogen
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The production of biopellets from agricultural residues is an effective method to overcome the expected shortage in the supply of fuel pellets in the future. This work focused on the new potential applications of fuel pellets to produce liquid and gas fuels through thermochemical and hydrothermal biomass-to-gas technologies. The outcomes also provide a basis to compare the effects of steam and hydrothermal gasification techniques on the properties of product and byproduct, as well as their potentials. For steam gasification, the syngas yield increased from 10.7 to 27.8 mmol/g (on a dry and ash-free basis) by a rise in the gasification temperature at a constant steam-to-biomass ratio. In the case of hydrothermal gasification, there was no carbon monoxide, and hydrogen was the main gas product, and with an increase in the temperature, the hydrogen yield rose from 0.4 mmol/g to 3.17 mmol/g with temperatures from 350 to 650 °C. CO had the largest share in the gas product from steam gasification, which was between 23.3 and 31.3 mol%. The range of the molar ratio of H2/CO for the steam gasification (1.13–1.40) showed the necessity of the further purification of gas products to utilize them as feed for liquid fuel production using the Fischer–Tropsch process. Examination of the mineral content of biochar that remained after the gasification techniques showed large essential elements in them compared with heavy metals, which shows potential for soil amendment. The results highlight the possibility of converting an agricultural residue into a value-added product with potential applications in the energy sector and agriculture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".