Thermogravimetric analysis and kinetic modeling of the pyrolysis of different biomass types by means of model-fitting, model-free and network modeling approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This work aims at comparing the ability of 7 modeling approaches to simulate the pyrolysis kinetics of spruce wood, wheat straw, swine manure, miscanthus and switchgrass. Measurements were taken using a thermogravimetric analyzer (TGA) with 4 heating rates comprised between 5 and 30 K min −1 . The obtained results were processed using 3 isoconversional methods (Kissinger–Akahira–Sunose (KAS), Ozawa–Flynn–Wall (OFW) and Friedman), 1-step and 3-step Kissinger models, as well as an advanced fitting method recently proposed by Bondarchuk et al. [1] (Molecules 28:424, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28010424 ). Seventeen reaction models were considered to derive rate constant parameters, which were used to simulate the variation of the fuel conversion degree $$\alpha$$ α as a function of the temperature $$T$$ T . To complement this benchmarking analysis of the modeling approaches commonly used to simulate biomass pyrolysis, a network model, the bio-CPD (chemical percolation devolatilization), was additionally considered. The suitability of each model was assessed by computing the root-mean-square deviation between simulated and measured $$\alpha =f(T)$$ α = f ( T ) profiles. As highlights, the model-free methods were found to accurately reproduce experimental results. The agreement between simulated and measured data was found to be higher with the Friedman model, followed by the KAS, FWO, 3-step, and 1-step Kissinger models. As for the bio-CPD, it failed to predict measured data as well as the above-listed models. To conclude, although it was less efficient than the Friedman, KAS or OFW models, the fitting approach from Bondarchuk et al. [1] (Molecules 28:424, 2023, https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules28010424 ) still led to satisfactory results, while having the advantage of not requiring the selection of a reaction model a priori.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".