MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411103859 · doi:10.3390/engproc2024076108

Hydrothermal Liquefaction of Pulp and Paper Mill Residues for Biocrude Production

2025· article· en· W4411103859 on OpenAlexafffund
Toluwanimi Adetunji, Mohammad Yusuf, Pali Rosha, Hussameldin Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Regina
FundersMitacsUniversity of Regina
KeywordsHydrothermal liquefactionHydrothermal circulationPulp and paper industryPulp (tooth)LiquefactionPulp millWaste managementMillEnvironmental scienceChemistryBiofuelChemical engineeringEngineeringOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pulp and paper industry is one of the leading waste-generating industries globally. With the rich energy content of these wastes and many of these mills not paying attention/implementing efficient waste disposal methods, it has become imperative that research efforts on pulp and paper waste valorization be performed; hence this paper. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) technology was adopted due to its ability to transform wet biomass into biocrude. The research studied the effects of reaction parameters such as temperature, residence time, feed concentration, and catalysts on the yield of biocrude. While central composite design (CCD) was used in the design of the experiments, response surface methodology (RSM) was utilized for their optimization. The optimum parametric conditions obtained were the following: temperature: 340 °C; residence time: 56min; and feed concentration: 5%. Zeolite (HZSM-5), gamma-alumina (γ-Al2O3), and activated carbon were utilized as catalysts, and their performances with respect to biocrude yield improvement were evaluated. The order of catalytic effect on the biocrude yield was γ-Al2O3 (25.65%) > HZSM-5 (23.18%) > activated carbon (21.94%). Catalyst characterization was performed on the fresh and spent catalysts to study their properties and to make informed inferences on their impacts on biocrude yield. Based on the findings from this research, necessary conclusions and recommendations for future work are presented.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Bench or experimentallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207