A comparison of attenuated total reflectance‐FTIR spectroscopy and GPC for monitoring biodiesel production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Gel permeation chromatography (GPC) and attenuated total reflectance (ATR)‐FTIR spectroscopy were used to monitor the products of transesterification of waste frying oil in methanol to FAME or biodiesel. To evaluate the reliability and reproducibility of each method, quantitative analyses of mixtures of standards (TG, DG, MG, FAME, and glycerol) as well as lipid products of transesterification were carried out. The reproducibility of each method was found to be within ±1–5%. The differences between the results of the two methods were less than ±2%. The GPC method showed good separation of the intermediate products MG and glycerol from the TG starting material and FAME, but DG were not completely separated from TG, GPC gave good quantitative results for MG and FAME, but the TG and DG analyses required correction, depending on the mole ratio of TG/DG. In contrast, ATR‐FTIR spectroscopy could only give quantitative data for the sum of TG+DG+MG.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".