MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W984860901 · doi:10.25165/ijabe.v6i2.779

Factors affecting the quality of biomass pellet for biofuel and energy analysis of pelleting process

2013· article· en· W984860901 on OpenAlexaff
Phani Adapa, Lope G. Tabil, Greg Schoenau

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of agricultural and biological engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPelletBiomass (ecology)StrawBiofuelRaw materialSteam explosionPelletsEnvironmental sciencePulp and paper industryBriquetteGrindCanolaRenewable energyBioenergyBiorefineryWaste managementAgronomyMaterials scienceEngineeringChemistryCoalComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Agricultural biomass residue such as barley, canola, oat and wheat straw has the potential to be used for sustainable production of bio-fuels and offset greenhouse gas emissions. The biomass substrate must be processed and handled in an efficient manner in order to reduce industry’s operational cost as well as meet the requirement of raw material for biofuel production. Biomass has low bulk density, making it difficult and costly to store and transport in its native loose form. Therefore, in this study, an integrated approach to densification of non-treated and steam exploded barley, canola, oat and wheat straw was developed. During this process, the significance of major contributing factors (independent variables such as biomass type, treatment, pressure and grind size) on pellet density, durability and specific energy were determined. It has been found that applied pressure (60.4%) was the most significant factor affecting pellet density followed by the application of steam explosion pre-treatment (39.4%) for lab-scale single pelleting experiments. Similarly, the type of biomass (47.1%) is the most significant factor affecting durability followed by the application of pre-treatment (38.2%) and grind size (14.6%) for pellets manufactured using the pilot-scale pellet mill. Also, applied pressure (58.3%) was the most significant factor affecting specific energy required to manufacture pellets followed by the biomass (15.3%), pre-treatment (13.3%) and grind size (13.2%), which had lower but similar effect on specific energy for lab-scale single pelleting experiments. Overall energy analysis of post-harvest processing and densification of agricultural straw was performed, which showed that a significant portion of original agricultural biomass energy (89%-94%) is available for the production of biofuels. Almost, similar amount of specific energy is required to produce pellets from barley, canola, oat and wheat straw grinds. Customized pellets having steam exploded straw required more energy to manufacture resulting in availability of only 89% of total energy for biofuel production.

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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations32
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of agricultural and biological engineeringSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207