MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407565555 · doi:10.1016/j.cherd.2025.02.015

Biomass fly-ash derived Li4SiO4 solid for pilot-scale CO2 capture, part II: Waste management and utilization

2025· article· en· W4407565555 on OpenAlexafffund
Samantha A Usas, Luis Ricardez‐Sandoval

Bibliographic record

VenueProcess Safety and Environmental Protection · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWaste managementBiomass (ecology)Environmental scienceFly ashMunicipal solid wasteScale (ratio)Solid waste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents an enhanced process model for a carbon capture system that utilizes biomass fly-ash waste as a component in the synthesis of a solid adsorbent (Li 4 SiO 4 ) which is used as the CO 2 capture technology. As presented in Part I of this study, fly-ash in this process is pre-treated with acid and water washing units. In the present study, the enhancements made in the pre-treatment step include the incorporation of wastewater treatment, recycle, and elemental extraction/precipitate formation as a waste management tactic for the water treatments concentrate waste stream. The enhanced system recycles 85 % of the used water and the benchmark results show a 4.1 % cost reduction compared to an existing benchmark process. Additionally, results determine that the cost of resource consumption (CRC) can be reduced by 14.5 % compared to the existing benchmark system. Scenarios examine the impact of varying percentage of water recycled, the acid to fly-ash ratio, and biomass fly-ash source on the process. Key insights from these scenarios show that the amount of DI water and acid have the largest impact on process cost and CRC and that both straw and grass show potential as a silicone source for Li 4 SiO 4 synthesis. Furthermore, an analysis on further utilization of CO 2 and waste streams through elemental extraction of iron (III) hydroxide and calcium carbonate extraction were considered using different flowsheet configurations. Results from the pilot scale plant showed that iron (III) hydroxide is formed and can be removed from the waste stream for sale; however, it did not seem to be economically viable for a pilot-scale plant. Further test showed that selling captured CO 2 and waste streams to cement production is an attractive and sustainable alternative. A cost analysis from this strategy resulted in a 1.35 % decrease in process costs from the baseline results and a 1.61 % decrease in the CRC from the benchmark results thus promoting a circular carbon economy. • An enhanced CO2 capture model to that presented in Part I of this study is presented. • Enhancements made include wastewater treatment and recycle in pre-treatment step. • Elemental extraction/precipitate formation as a waste management tactic is considered. • Utilization of CO2 and waste streams through elemental extraction is investigated. • Selling captured CO2 and waste streams to cement production is a sustainable alternative.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcess Safety and Environmental ProtectionSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207