MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988917560 · doi:10.1063/1.4764934

Bioconversion of wheat straw lignocellulosic sugars to ethanol by recombinant <i>Escherichia coli</i>

2012· article· en· W1988917560 on OpenAlex
Ravi Dhabhai, Satyendra P. Chaurasia, Ajay K. Dalai

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsXyloseBioconversionChemistryHydrolysateEthanol fuelFermentationFood scienceLignocellulosic biomassSugarEthanolBiofuelCellulaseEnzymatic hydrolysisHydrolysisBiochemistryBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recombinant microorganisms are a promising alternative for production of bioethanol from sugars produced from lignocellulosic materials. In the present work, recombinant Escherichia coli FBR16 has been utilized to produce bioethanol from simulated glucose-xylose mixtures and wheat straw hydrolysates. Hydrolysates were produced by sequential treatment of dilute acid pretreatment at 180 °C for 7 min using 0.5% (v/v) H2SO4 and enzymatic saccharification using cellulase from Trichoderma reesei and β-glucosidase from Aspergillus niger. With increased concentration of glucose-xylose sugar mixtures, ethanol yield and volumetric ethanol productivity decreased. At 22 g/l, ethanol yield of 0.34 g/g and volumetric ethanol productivity of 0.36 g/l·h were obtained which reduced to only 0.19 g/g and 0.17 g/l·h, respectively, at 160 g/l glucose-xylose sugar mixture. Fermentation kinetic parameters were also estimated and it was found that values of parameters were highly dependent on initial sugar concentration. Furthermore, it was observed that E. coli FBR16 is capable of producing bioethanol from almost all lignocellulosic monomeric sugars, especially glucose and xylose. At 16.4 g/l lignocellulosic hydrolysate concentration, ethanol yield of 0.32 g/g and productivity of 0.24 g/l·h were obtained. In order to see the effect of lignocellulosic sugar concentration on ethanol production, hydrolysates were concentrated to 50 g/l from the original concentration of 16.4 g/l. E. coli FBR16 was able to ferment the increased sugar concentration as well; however decreased ethanol yield of 0.29 g/g and volumetric ethanol productivity of 0.17 g/l·h were obtained.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.182 · 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