Novel biological and chemical methods of chitin extraction from crustacean waste using saline water
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Several techniques have been proposed to recover chitin from shrimp waste using large amounts of freshwater and chemicals. The standard chemical recovery of chitin was first compared by replacing fresh water with seawater. In addition, a biotechnological process with Bacillus subtilis ( B1 ) and Bacillus licheniformis ( B2 ) using seawater during all steps of chitin extraction was studied. RESULTS The demineralization rate ( DM ) was statistically significant when using seawater ( P= 0.000020) and chemical recovery in comparison with deproteinization ( DP ). Increasing HCl concentration (from 1 to 1.28 mol L −1 ) and reaction time (from 60 to 90 min) resulted in DM similar to fresh water ( P >0.05). Highest DP rates were obtained with crude protease ( B1 ; DP ≈74%) and ( B2 : DP ≈84%), when fermentation was carried out for 24 h at an enzyme/substrate ratio of 2. Maximum DP was reached (≈79% for B1 and ≈ 82% for B2 ) after 15 days, while DM ranged between 55 and 60%. CONCLUSION Combined enzymatic DP (with B2 ) followed by a chemical DM process was used to produce chitin ( DP ≈84%, DM ≈94%) which, on transformation to chitosan, showed a degree of deacetylation equivalent to ≈ 71%. This combined approach using seawater could transform crustacean waste into chitin products of commercial value. © 2015 Society of Chemical Industry
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it