MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Torrefaction and steam explosion of flax straw: Combustion characteristics, kinetics, and thermodynamics

2025· article· en· W4416678335 on OpenAlexafffund
Rawan Wattan, Mohammad Amin Zamiri, Bishnu Acharya, Ajay K. Dalai

Bibliographic record

VenueBiomass and Bioenergy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsTorrefactionCombustionSteam explosionGibbs free energyEnthalpyBiofuelStrawActivation energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agri-residues can be utilized as coal-like biofuels for power generation. Treatment methods can upgrade their fuel properties and combustion behavior. This study tested the effects of torrefaction and steam explosion on the combustion characteristics, kinetics and thermodynamics of flax straw. Flax straw was torrefied at a temperature range of 250–300 ° C and a residence time of 1 h. Steam explosion was conducted at 300 psi and a reaction time of 1 min. Combustion of raw and treated flax straw was executed through thermogravimetric analysis (TGA) at four heating rates, 5, 7.5, 10, and 15 ° C/min. The findings revealed that the effect of torrefaction on the ignition and burnout temperatures of flax straw was more pronounced than that of steam explosion, highlighting the thermal stability of torrefied biofuels. Combustion kinetics were analyzed following the Friedman, Kissinger-Akahira-Sunose (KAS), and Ozawa-Flynn-Wall (OFW) methods. Torrefied biofuels showcased lower activation energy values relative to raw and steam exploded biomasses, where the mean activation energy at a 0.1–0.8 conversion range was 42.9 kJ/mol for flax straw torrefied at 250 ° C, as determined by the OFW method. Furthermore, the activation energy was used to obtain the change in activation enthalpy, Gibbs free energy, and activation entropy of combustion using the Eyring equations. Thermodynamic properties were enhanced after torrefaction, with lower mean activation enthalpy and entropy values and higher Gibbs free energy. The results provide an insight into the potential of torrefied biomass as a promising biofuel for power generation. • Torrefaction had a greater impact on combustion behavior than steam explosion. • Torrefaction at 250 °C increased the ignition temperature from 259.1 to 280.9 °C. • Activation energy decreased post torrefaction at 250 °C from 105.0 to 42.9 kJ/mol. • Activation enthalpy and entropy decreased after torrefaction. • Gibbs free energy increased from 117.9 to 157.8 kJ/mol post torrefaction at 250 °C.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiomass and BioenergySame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207