A Comparative Study on the Performance of Fiber-Based Biosorbents in the Purification of Biodiesel Derived from Camelina sativa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biodiesel has received great interest as a promising substitute for petrodiesel. Biodiesel purification which follows the transesterification process is typically carried out using a wet washing process that generates large amounts of wastewater. Consequently, alternative methods are emerging as sustainable options for biodiesel purification. One of such methods is a dry washing process. In this paper, the performance of three dry washing media (commercially available BD-Zorb, sawdust and wood shavings) were evaluated as potentially suitable options for the purification of biodiesel derived from Camelina sativa. The results indicate that for the crude camelina biodiesel with an initial soap content of 9007 ppm, BD-Zorb exhibited the best purification performance. The soap removal capacity of BD-Zorb, sawdust, and wood shavings was 51.1 mL/g, 24.4 mL/g, and 9.4 mL/g respectively. The primary mechanism of soap removal using sawdust and wood shavings media was physical filtration and adsorption. While for adsorbent BD-Zorb, soap removal mechanism included adsorption and ion exchange due to the existence of a small amount of resins. The ion exchange led to a high acid number (1 mg KOH/g) of the purified biodiesel, and failed to meet the ASTM D6751 specifications (<0.5 mg KOH/g).
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".