MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260447383 · doi:10.1007/s11746-016-2798-5

A Quantitative Method of Analysis for Sterol Glycosides in Biodiesel and FAME Using GC‐FID

2016· article· en· W2260447383 on OpenAlexafffund
Alessandro Montpetit, André Y. Tremblay

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Oil Chemists Society · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiodiesel Production and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiodieselChromatographyGas chromatographyChemistryCanolaReproducibilityStandard additionDetection limitOrganic chemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Sterol glycosides (SG) are known to cause filter blocking problems in biodiesel use. The extraction and quantitative analysis of SG is difficult due to its low problematic concentration and its compatibility with biodiesel. The purpose of this study is to develop a method to quantify SG in FAME and biodiesel using gas chromatography and other equipment found in laboratories performing routine biodiesel analyses. SG was isolated from FAME using n ‐dodecane, acidification and cold soaking, followed by cold centrifugation at −8 to −15 °C. The solids obtained were further separated by phase partition with a Folch wash, followed by a final n ‐dodecane rinse. This solution was analyzed by GC‐FID using the operating conditions outlined in ASTM D6584. A calibration curve for SG was produced and a first order fit gave a value of r 2 = 0.992. Reproducibility tests were performed on soybean FAME and B100 canola biodiesel samples spiked with SG. The recovery of SG by the new method was found to be 99 % for soy FAME with a standard deviation of 0.7 and 100 % for B100 canola with a standard deviation of 3.5 %. The reproducibility based on two standard deviations of the predicted concentration for all 12 spiked samples studied in this work was 2.4 ppm.

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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Oil Chemists SocietySame topicBiodiesel Production and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207