MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407190589 · doi:10.1016/j.nxsust.2025.100109

An exergy-based analysis for the synthesis of aromatics from biomass

2025· article· en· W4407190589 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed Awwalu Usman, Joseph Akintola, Gabriel T. Umoh, Joseph Akpan, Wilson Ekpotu, Queen Moses, Philemon Udom, Edose Osagie

Bibliographic record

VenueNext Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCatalysis for Biomass Conversion
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)ExergyEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryWaste managementProcess engineeringEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical process industry has been facing rising energy costs, increasing competition due to rapid globalization, and more stringent government regulations amid growing public concern for the environment, health, and safety. In response to these challenges and considering the industry's capital-intensive nature, ongoing optimization through redesigning existing production plants has become a key strategy. This study designs and analyses a typical process plant with two routes for synthesizing aromatics from methanol and pentane. Process route 1 involves co-feeding, while process route 2 incorporates recycling and producing pentane. For methanol synthesis , cellulose (biomass) is used as the initial raw material, leading to the synthesis of aromatics through a reaction with pentanes. Exergy, exergo-economic, and pinch analyses are performed on both process routes. The routes display different overall exergy performances, with process routes 1 and 2 achieving 39.53 % and 25.43 % exergy, respectively. The highest exergetic performance is recorded in the CO 2 heater (67.69 %) and the biomass oxidation reactor (88.70 %) for process routes 1 and 2, respectively. Exergo-economic evaluations indicate that Benzene distillation separation experiences exergy destruction rates of 28.61 % and exergo-economic factor of 99.92 % for process 1, while the aromatics heater shows the highest exergy destruction of 56.68 % for process 2. Implementing heat integration in the process routes reveals that process route 1 achieves energy savings of 92.09 %, while process route 2 results in 51.38 % energy savings. This study demonstrates the two process routes’ long-term economic viability and efficiency, which can be further optimised in future studies to achieve sustainable process implementation.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNext SustainabilitySame topicCatalysis for Biomass ConversionFrench-language works237,207