ArticlePloS one2021
Pruning harvesting with modular towed chipper: Little effect of the machine setting and configuration on performance despite strong impact on wood chip quality.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pruning residues can have a high quality as feedstock for energy purposes and are largely available in Europe. However, it is still an untapped resource. Such scarce use is due to the need to optimize their supply chain in term of collection machines and the associate cost of collection. A modular chipper (prototype PC50) for pruning harvest was developed. Such prototype is adaptable to various harvesting logistics and may produce a higher quality woodchip compared with the one produced by shredders available in the market. In this work, we tested the performance and quality of the product delivered by the prototype PC50 in various conditions and plant species, after a modulation of the machine settings (counter-rotating toothed rollers [CRR] speed), loading systems ([LS], either big bag or container), and knife types ([KT], either discontinuous hoe shaped knives or continuous helicoidal knives). To take into account of the covariates in the experiment (Cropping season and plant species), LSmeans were computed to have an unbiased estimate of the treatments means. The modulation of LS and KT scarcely affected the performance of the machine. In particular, the choice of the KT affected the field efficiency when the LS was a Tilting box but not a Big Bag. Whereas the continuous knife resulted in a 97% higher material capacity compared to hoe shape knives, the last of which the amount of short sized (<16 mm) fractions compared to helicoidal knives. No role of the CCR was found on the machine performance, but increasing CRR speed reduced the chip apparent bulk density and the fraction chips with a size <8 mm.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.