Stabilized Pyrolytic Lignin-in-Vacuum gas oil emulsions for enhanced cracking Co-Processing Performance: Emulsification Strategies and product yield characterization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
• A novel strategy for stabilizing PL-in-VGO emulsions by optimizing co-solvent and surfactant selection. • The emulsion maintained stability for 150 min at 50 °C. • Emulsification suppressed phase separation, preserving liquid product stability for over five months. • Catalytic cracking of the emulsion yielded higher-quality fuel than thermal cracking. • PL-in-VGO emulsions enhance biocrude upgrading efficiency and offer a scalable route to conventional FPO co-processing. Co-processing fast pyrolysis oil (FPO) with petroleum fuels faces challenges due to its high acidity, high oxygen content, poor miscibility, and corrosion risks. Pyrolytic lignin (PL), a key FPO fraction, offers lower oxygen content, reduced acidity, and higher heating value, making it a promising alternative for co-processing. This study introduces a novel strategy for stabilizing PL-in-vacuum gas oil (VGO) emulsions and evaluates their co-processing feasibility via thermal and zeolite-catalyzed cracking. The solubility parameter was employed as a guiding criterion for selecting an optimal co-solvent system. A mixed co-solvent of 10 wt% acetone and 90 wt% hexanol demonstrated superior emulsification performance, while sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate (SDBS) emerged as the most effective surfactant, achieving a stable emulsion for 150 min at 50 °C at PL:VGO:co-solvent:SDBS ratio of 1:4:1:1 (w/w). Emulsified feeds enhanced upgrading performance, lowering coke (6.6 wt% vs 19.0 wt%) and gas yield (24.0 wt% vs 29.0 wt%), and increasing liquid yield (69.4 wt% vs 52.0 wt%) compared to PL alone. Compared to physical blends, emulsions also reduced coke (6.6 wt% vs. 7.6 wt%) and prevented phase separation in liquid products. Thermal cracking of the emulsions reduced coke formation and increased liquid yield, while catalytic cracking produced higher-quality liquid product. Higher catalytic cracking temperatures (530 °C vs 400 °C) favored gas over liquid yields. The results demonstrate, for the first time, that PL/VGO emulsions improve biocrude upgrading efficiency and offer a scalable alternative to conventional FPO co-processing, providing a viable pathway for integrating biomass-derived feedstocks into existing refinery infrastructures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".