Pellet Production from Municipal Solid Wastes Under Various Parametric Conditions in a Cold Canadian Climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Highlights Three wastes of varying sizes were pelletized in a flat-die machine at two moisture levels. SSOs have higher density; RDFs show greater durability in pellet form. Higher MC raises RDF durability but lowers bulk density and increases fines. Pellet durability increases with screen size at 15% moisture content, though RDF decreases. SSO pellets show 15% lower SEC than RDF at 8% MC and 4 mm screen size. ABSTRACT. As municipal solid waste (MSW) volumes continue to rise, the valorization of its organic fractions through densification techniques is crucial for sustainable waste management and energy recovery. In cold-climate regions like Edmonton, Alberta, challenges remain in pelletizing heterogeneous waste streams directly sourced from municipal facilities. This study investigates the pelletization behavior of three MSW streams—digestate from anaerobic processes (DAP), source-separated organics (winter) (SSO w ), and refuse-derived fuel (RDF)—using a lab-scale flat plate die mill. Feedstocks were processed at three screen sizes (4, 8, and 12 mm) and two moisture contents (10% and 15%) through a 6 mm die. RDF and SSO pellets exhibited high durability (>96%), while DAPs failed to form durable pellets because of their high ash content and low higher heating value (HHV). RDF pellets achieved a peak HHV of 21.49 MJ kg -1 , twice that of DAP (10.07 MJ kg -1 ), while SSOs showed seasonal variation (13.88 to 19.47 MJ kg -1 ). The lowest specific energy consumption (SEC) was observed for 10% MC SSO at 4 mm (256.99 kJ kg -1 ) and for 15% MC RDF at 8 mm (1432.69 kJ kg -1 ). Pellet bulk density reached 594 kg m -3 for RDF and 730 kg m -3 for SSOs at 10% MC. Throughput capacity decreased with increasing screen size, with 12 mm RDF at 10% and 15% MC yielding the lowest rates (6.99 and 12.20 kg hr -1 , respectively). These findings reveal optimal pelletization parameters and key data for scaling RDFs and SSOs, supporting thermochemical conversion and circular waste-to-energy strategies. Keywords: Digestate, Grinding, Municipal solid waste, Pelletization, Refuse-derived fuel, Source-separated organics.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".