Methane production from citrus wastes: process development and cost estimation
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: Because of its extreme toxicity for microorganisms, the limonene content of citrus wastes (CWs) has been a major obstacle to the conversion of CWs to biofuels. The main objective of this study was to develop a new process for the utilization of CWs that can be economically feasible when the supply of CW is low. RESULTS: Steam explosion pre‐treatment was applied to improve the anaerobic digestibility of CWs, resulting in a decrease of initial limonene concentration by 94.3%. A methane potential of 0.537 ± 0.001 m 3 kg −1 VS (volatile solids) was obtained during the following batch digestion of treated CWs, corresponding to an increase of 426% compared with that of the untreated samples. Long‐term effects of the treatment were further investigated by a semi‐continuous co‐digestion process. A methane production of 0.555 ± 0.0159 m 3 CH 4 kg −1 VS day −1 was achieved when treated CWs (corresponding to 30% of the VS load) were co‐digested with municipal solid waste. CONCLUSION: The process developed can easily be applied to an existing biogas plant. The equipment cost for this process is estimated to be one million USD when utilizing 10 000 tons CWs year −1 . 8.4 L limonene and 107.4 m 3 methane can be produced per ton of fresh citrus wastes in this manner. Copyright © 2011 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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