MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2283032667 · doi:10.14288/1.0074254

Forest residues as a potential feedstock for a biorefinery : material balance and pretreatment strategies

2013· article· en· W2283032667 on OpenAlexaff
Sabrina Burkhardt

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiorefineryRaw materialEnvironmental scienceWaste managementPulp and paper industryChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest residues represent an abundant and potentially sustainable source of biomass which could be used as a feedstock for a biomass-to-chemicals-and-fuels process (biorefinery). However, due to the heterogeneity of forest residues, one of the expected challenges will be to obtain an accurate material balance of both the starting and pretreated material. As current compositional analysis methods have been developed to quantify more homogenous feedstocks such as whitewood and agricultural crops, it is likely that they will have difficulty in providing a complete material balance for these more diverse substrates. The research work initially assessed the robustness of established methods to quantify a variety of forest residues (bark, hog fuel, forest thinnings, logging residue, disturbance wood) before and after steam pretreatment. It was anticipated that the diverse chemistry and heterogeneity of forest residues would make it difficult to obtain an accurate material balance. Although the NREL recommended methods provided a reasonable estimate of carbohydrate components of the various feedstocks, method revision was necessary to accurately quantify the non-carbohydrate components and thus obtain an acceptable summative mass closure. This was particularly evident for high-extractive containing residues such as bark. After steam pretreatment, the incomplete removal of extractives from the pretreated material proved to be more problematic. The refined material balance methods were subsequently used to evaluate the potential of using pretreated forest residues as a biorefinery feedstock. Acid catalysed steam pretreatment was not as effective on forest residues and poor sugar yields were obtained despite using high enzyme loadings. It was likely that, in the acidic medium resulting from SO₂ catalysed steam pretreatment, the extractives reacted with the lignin and consequently restricted enzyme accessibility to the cellulose. In contrast, an alkaline pretreatment effectively removed most of the extractives and lignin from cellulosic components of the bark. The resulting cellulose-rich, water insoluble component could be almost completely hydrolyzed. It was apparent that established analytical methods will have to be modified to obtain a representative material balance of both the starting and pretreated material and that, even with “tailoring” pretreatment/fractionation strategies, forest residues will prove to be challenging feedstocks for any potential bioconversion process.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.152
Teacher spread0.147 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207