MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161937951 · doi:10.82308/10963

Production and Characterization of Cardboard Biochar using a Commercial Gasifier

2020· dissertation· en· W7161937951 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sebastian Fricke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocharcardboardCharcoalAirflowCarbon fibersYield (engineering)Production (economics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biochar has been suggested for use in many applications such as soil amendment, long-term carbon storage and use in batteries as an electrode. Certain applications require a particular set of traits thereby necessitating the careful selection of production parameters to meet the end user’s needs. This research aimed to produce biochar using a Micro Auto Gasification Systems (MAGS) provided by Terragon Environmental Technologies (Montreal, Canada) then conduct physical, chemical and biological characterization. The MAGS’ operating procedure was adapted to increase the carbon content of the charred product and qualify it as biochar, as per the International Biochar Initiative (IBI) and European Biochar Certificate (EBC) standards. The production of biochar occurred at three equivalence ratios (ER) of 0.15, 0.2 and 0.25. The ER was used due to the coupled nature of the temperature and oxygen control in MAGS. Approximately 3.0 kg of shredded cardboard was loaded into the MAGS and the desired airflow was adjusted to meet the ERs. Airflow controllers within the MAGS exhibited a slow response time thus caused difficulties in attaining the desired ERs, only reaching: 0.14, 0.17 and 0.20, respectively. The residence time was held constant at 16 minutes (min) and the cooldown time was held constant at 20 hours (h) . The biochar yield decreased with increasing ER. With an equivalence ratio of 0.2, the ash content spiked relative to the other two operating conditions (57.76% d.b. @ 105 °C compared to 29.85% and 31.28% for target ER = 0.15 and 0.25, respectively). This could be due to poor mixing in the gasification chamber and poor control of the cooldown conditions, whereby excess heat and air exposure could have caused spontaneous combustion of char. The higher ash content in this treatment likely contributed to the sample’s lower specific surface area of 7.22 m2kg-1, compared to 17.01 m2kg-1 and 22.70 m2kg-1 for target ER = 0.15 and 0.25, respectively. The heavy metal concentrations were within the IBI and EBC guidelines. A germination study was performed and no evidence was found to indicate that the biochar had phytotoxic effects on the germination of Lactuca sativa cv. Green Towers M.I. (romaine lettuce). The application rate of 3% and 5% mass/mass had statistically significantly higher germination rate, shoot dry mass and shoot length than 1% (p=0.05). Based on the results, the type of biochar (ER = 0.15, 0.2, 0.25) had no significant effect on the studied germination parameters. The biochar produced in this thesis is thus suitable for use as a soil amendment

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207