Effect of surfactants on separate hydrolysis fermentation and simultaneous saccharification fermentation of pretreated lodgepole pine
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
The effects of surfactants addition on enzymatic hydrolysis and subsequent fermentation of steam exploded lodgepole pine (SELP) and ethanol pretreated lodgepole pine (EPLP) were investigated in this study. Supplementing Tween 80 during cellulase hydrolysis of SELP resulted in a 32% increase in the cellulose-to-glucose yield. However, little improvement was obtained from hydrolyzing EPLP in the presence of the same amount of surfactant. The positive effect of surfactants on SELP hydrolysis led to an increase in final ethanol yield after the fermentation. It was found that the addition of surfactant led to a substantial increase in the amount of free enzymes in the 48 h hydrolysates derived from both substrates. The effect of surfactant addition on final ethanol yield of simultaneous saccharification and fermentation (SSF) was also investigated by using SELP in the presence of additional furfural and hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF). The results showed that the surfactants slightly increased the conversion rates of furfural and HMF during SSF process by Saccharomyces cerevisiae. The presence of furfural and HMF at the experimental concentrations did not affect the final ethanol concentration either. The strategy of applying surfactants in cellulase recycling to reduce enzyme cost is presented.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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