MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2235865434 · doi:10.5539/enrr.v6n1p35

Oil-Water Adsorptive Properties of Chemically Treated Sugarcane Bagasse

2015· article· en· W2235865434 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Handojo Djati Utomo, Phoon Ru Yi, Shen Zhonghuan, Ng Li Hui, Lim Zheng Bang

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Natural Resources Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBagasseLigninAdsorptionPulp and paper industryCelluloseChemistryEnvironmental scienceContaminationEnvironmental chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="1Body">Among the contaminants plaguing our waters today, oil remains one of the most pervasive and challenging contaminant to remove. Oil pollution occurs not only through factory discharge, but also by accident spills from the fuel of the vehicle or the transportation of oil. Sugarcane bagasse (SB) is an abundant agricultural by-product containing almost half of cellulose and one quarter of lignin. After chemical treatments SB can be modified their hydrophobicity leading to improve its oil adsorptive properties. In a column experiment containing 1 g of SB, oil was able to be adsorbed from oil and water mixture by, from the highest to the lowest uptake, AASB, ASSB, NSB, SSB and BSB with the average oil adsorption capacity of 13.0 mL/g, 11.25 mL/g, 10.50 mL/g, 9.0 mL/g and 8.75 mL/g respectively. The results were concurrently meeting the result of material characterisation using FTIR, where acetic acid treated SB (AASB) consists of high lignin leading to high hydrophobicity. On the other hand, BSB showed the lowest oil adsorption capacity and more hydrophilic due to the lowest amount of lignin present in SB. The result showed a potential use of natural material of SBs with high lignin content to tackle oil spill in water environment.</p>

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 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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Natural Resources ResearchSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207