The conversion of chicken manure to biooil by fast pyrolysis I. Analyses of chicken manure, biooils and char by<sup>13</sup>C and<sup>1</sup>H NMR and FTIR spectrophotometry
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
Fast pyrolysis of chicken manure produced two biooils (Fractions I and II) and a residual char. All four materials were analyzed by chemical methods, 13C and 1H Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometry (13C and 1H NMR), and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectrosphotometry (FTIR). The char showed the highest C content and the highest aromaticity. Of the two biooils Fraction II was higher in C, yield and calorific value but lower in N than Fraction I. The S and ash content of the two biooil fractions were low. The Cross Polarization Magic Angle Spinning (CP-MAS) 13C NMR spectrum of the initial chicken manure showed it to be rich in cellulose, which was a major component of sawdust used as bedding material. Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) spectra of the two biooils indicated that Fraction I was less aromatic than Fraction II. Among the aromatics in the two biooils, we were able to tentatively identify N-heterocyclics like indoles, pyridines, and pyrazines. FTIR spectra were generally in agreement with the NMR data. FTIR spectra of both biooils showed the presence of both primary and secondary amides and primary amines as well as N-heterocyclics such as pyridines, quinolines, and pyrimidines. The FTIR spectrum of the char resembled that of the initial chicken manure except that the concentration of carbohydrates was lower.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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