MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1915352831 · doi:10.18331/brj2015.2.1.6

Effect of extrusion conditions and hydrolysis with fiber-degrading enzymes on the production of C5 and C6 sugars from brewers’ spent grain for bioethanol production

2015· article· en· W1915352831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erick Heredia‐Olea, Esther Pérez‐Carrillo, Sergio O. Serna‐Saldívar

Bibliographic record

VenueBiofuel Research Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtrusionFermentationFood scienceChemistryEthanol fuelEnzymatic hydrolysisSugarBiofuelHydrolysisMoistureFiberYield (engineering)Materials sciencePulp and paper industryBiochemistryBiotechnologyComposite materialOrganic chemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bioconversion of brewers’ spent grain into bioethanol was investigated in the present study using thermoplastic extrusion and the use of fiber degrading enzymes. The extrusion conditions i.e. tempering moisture, screws speed, and temperature of last zone of the barrel were taken into account in order to optimize the yield of C5 and C6 sugars during the subsequent enzymatic hydrolysis step of the fibers. The most important variable that affected the sugar yield was the extrusion temperature, followed by the screws speed. The best extrusion conditions were 20% tempering moisture, 200 rpm and 50 °C. No enzymatic and yeast inhibitors were detected in any of the enzymatically-treated fiber hydrolyzates. The fermentation resulted in 5.43 mL bioethanol per 100g of extruded brewers’ spent grain (dry weight basis). The only sugar consumed was glucose. The free amino nitrogen amount quantified in the hydrolyzates was as low as >20 mg L-1, negatively affecting sugars consumption during the fermentation and consequently the ethanol yield.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiofuel Research JournalSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207