MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1793322049 · doi:10.18331/brj2015.1.3.7

Glucoamylase production from food waste by solid state fermentation and its evaluation in the hydrolysis of domestic food waste

2014· article· en· W1793322049 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Esra Uçkun Kıran, Antoine P. Trzcinski, Yu Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Production and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood wasteFermentationWaste managementDomestic wasteProduction (economics)HydrolysisSolid-state fermentationFood processingMunicipal solid wasteFood scienceChemistryPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceBiotechnologyBusinessEngineeringBiologyEconomicsBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, food wastes such as waste bread, savory, waste cakes, cafeteria waste, fruits, vegetables and potatoes were used as sole substrate for glucoamylase production by solid state fermentation. Response surface methodology was employed to optimize the fermentation conditions for improving the production of high activity enzyme. It was found that waste cake was the best substrate for glucoamylase production. Among all the parameters studied, glucoamylase activity was significantly affected by the initial pH and incubation time. The highest glucoamylase activity of 108.47 U/gds was achieved at initial pH of 7.9, moisture content of 69.6% wt., inoculum loading of 5.2×105 cells/gram substrate (gs) and incubation time of 6 d. The enzyme preparation could effectively digest 50% suspension of domestic food waste in 24 h with an almost complete saccharification using an enzyme dose of only 2U/g food waste at 60°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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicEnzyme Production and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207