Bioenergy Production from Biomass Combustion: Kinetics, Thermodynamics, and Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study conducted thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) to evaluate the combustion characteristics, kinetics, and thermodynamics of four different types of biomass (i.e., sawdust, oat straw, flax shives, and bamboo) in order to explore their potential and effectiveness as the fuel source for power generation. Process simulation was conducted to estimate the electricity generation capacity of each biomass type upon combustion. In the kinetics study, Ozawa Flynn Wall (FWO), Kissinger Akahira Sunose (KSA), Tang (TG), and Starink (SK) were employed, followed by the master plot method to explore the mechanism. The main results showed that the FWO model was the best fit for the studied range of conversion. In comparison, sawdust was identified as the most suitable fuel source among other feedstocks due to (i) the highest electricity generation potential based on simulation results; (ii) the lower activation energy (E) value across the studied range of the conversion degree; and (iii) a more persistent and favorable combustion process as reflected by its higher burnout temperature (T b ), longer burnout time (t b ), and comprehensive flammability index (S). In short, this study provides new insights into bioenergy production from various types of biomass and organic waste.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".