Pyrolysis and Combustion Behavior of Flax Straw as Biomass: Evaluation of Kinetic, Thermodynamic Parameters, and Qualitative Analysis of Degradation Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study describes an investigation of the pyrolysis and combustion of flax straw as biofuel, focusing on the physicochemical properties and kinetic and thermodynamic parameters, and evaluates the type of degradation products using the thermogravimetry analysis–Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (TGA-FTIR) technique. Pyrolysis and combustion processes were studied via thermogravimetric analysis at different heating rates of 5-10-15 and 20 °C min, one using three isoconversional methods and one using a model-fitting method. The activation energies, frequency factors, and thermodynamic parameters of flax straw biomass were investigated using different models. The obtained activation energy values for pyrolysis varied between 101.0 and 109.6 kJ mol−1 and for combustion were between 203.3 and 239.2 kJ mol−1. The frequency factors were determined to be 1.7 × 109 for pyrolysis and 1.5 × 1017 s−1 for combustion. The change in Gibbs free energy (ΔG) for the pyrolysis of flax straw was calculated to be 162.6 kJ mol−1, whereas for combustion it increased to 203.9 kJ mol−1. A notable contrast between the volatiles produced by pyrolysis and combustion is evident from the real-time analysis of the degradation products. Specifically, carboxylic acids, aromatics, alkanes, and alcohols are the principal degradation products during pyrolysis, while carbon dioxide is the primary component produced during combustion. These encouraging research outcomes regarding flax straw pyrolysis and combustion can broaden its application in bioenergy and biofuel, thus contributing significantly to it for resource recovery.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".