Effect of thermal and alkaline pretreatment of giant miscanthus and Chinese fountaingrass on biogas production
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
Giant miscanthus (Miscanthus × giganteus) and Chinese fountaingrass (Pennisetum alopecuroides (L.) Spreng), cultivated for landscaping and soil conservation, are potential energy crops. The study investigated the effect of combined thermal and alkaline pretreatments on biogas production of these energy crops. The pretreatment included two types of alkali (6% CaO and 6% NaOH) at 22, 70 and 100 °C. The alkaline pretreatment resulted in a greater breakdown of the hemicellulose fraction, with CaO more effective than NaOH. Pretreatment of giant miscanthus with 6% CaO at 100 °C for 24 h produced a CH4 yield (313 mL g(-1) volatile solids (VS)) that was 1.7 times that of the untreated sample (186 mL g(-1) VS). However, pretreatment of Chinese fountaingrass with 6% CaO or 6% NaOH at 70 °C for 24 h resulted in similar CH4 yields (328 and 302 mL g(-1) VS for CaO and NaOH pretreatments) as the untreated sample (311 mL g(-1) VS). Chinese fountaingrass was more easily digestible but had a low overall CH4 yield per hectare (1,831 m(3) ha(-1) y(-1)) compared to giant miscanthus (6,868 m(3) ha(-1) y(-1)). This study demonstrates the potential of thermal/alkaline pretreatment and the use of giant miscanthus and Chinese fountaingrass for biogas production.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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