MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409799902 · doi:10.11159/iceptp25.179

Six-Year Study of Biofuel Ash to Assess Its Ecological Risk in Lithuania

2025· article· en· W4409799902 on OpenAlex
Kristina Bunevičienė, Donata Drapanauskaitė, Karolina Barčauskaitė, Karolina Gvildienė

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMetallurgy and Material Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiofuelEnvironmental scienceWaste managementEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the use of biofuels for energy production has increased significantly, particularly in forest-rich European countries.It is worth noting that biofuels are a more environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels and are considered neutral in terms of greenhouse gas emissions [1].However, the combustion of biofuels generates a substantial amount of ash annually [2].According to literature sources, renewable electricity production alone results in approximately 10 million tons of biomass ash per year [3].It is important to highlight that the physical and chemical properties of different types of ash can vary significantly [4].Biofuel ash contains essential nutrients for plants, [5] but also includes heavy metals [6].Despite the presence of heavy metals, biofuel ash can be utilized in agriculture [7] and forest fertilization [8] provided that the concentrations do not exceed the legally permitted limits or the construction sector [9], However, before using biofuel ash, it is crucial to assess the environmental risks associated with its heavy metal content.This study presents data on biofuel ash collected between 2017 and 2022.The secondary raw material was gathered from various boiler houses in Lithuania.During the study, the chemical composition of the ash was analyzed based on 17 parameters: Corg, K, P, Ca, Mg, Cu, Zn, Cd, Pb, Ni, Cr, As, V, B, Hg, benzo(a)pyrene, and pH.An environmental risk assessment was also conducted.A risk index (RI) was calculated during the experiment to evaluate the potential hazards of heavy metals in biofuel ash.The results indicate that the concentration of inorganic pollutants in biofuel ash varies significantly from year to year, largely depending on the type of wood burned.In most cases, the concentration of various elements exceeded the maximum permissible limits.Additionally, the findings revealed that the overall cumulative ecological risk associated with biofuel ash is very high, primarily due to the elevated concentration of cadmium (Cd).This environmental risk assessment can contribute to better management of biofuel ash quantities and quality control in Lithuania.Given that the measured concentrations of inorganic pollutants frequently exceeded the established legal limits, the Government of Lithuania may consider these research findings to regulate and revise existing standards.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.214 · 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