<scp> CO <sub>2</sub> </scp> ‐based spouted fluidized bed gasification of kitchen waste: Experimental investigation with process modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the present study, kitchen waste is chosen as a solid feed for producing high‐caloric valuable syngas using CO 2 as a gasifying agent. Dried kitchen waste is gasified in a spouted fluidized bed reactor for syngas production. In the process, along with syngas, a significant quantity of oil (48 wt.%) and solid char residue is obtained during pyrolysis. Further, the spouted bed process is simulated in ASPEN PLUS using various reactor modules and the calculated results is validated with the experimental data. A model using the combination of continuous stirred tank reactor (CSTR) and plug flow reactor (PFR) with recycling of gas and char fits the behaviour of spouted bed. Further, the experimental investigation of fixed and spouted bed gasification of kitchen showed that the calorific value of syngas obtained during gasification is 10.45 MJ/nm 3 with 30.00 vol.% CO and 24.00 vol.% H 2 . Further, the effect of process parameters such as pressure, temperature, spouting gas flow rate, and feed rate of kitchen waste on overall syngas composition is evaluated using ASPEN PLUS software.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".