MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2587411857 · doi:10.1515/gps-2016-0017

Biomass processing into ethanol: pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, fermentation, rheology, and mixing

2016· article· en· W2587411857 on OpenAlexaff
Bohdan Volynets, Farhad Ein‐Mozaffari, Yaser Dahman

Bibliographic record

VenueGreen Processing and Synthesis · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)BiofuelRaw materialEnzymatic hydrolysisPulp and paper industryFermentationLignocellulosic biomassEthanol fuelCommercializationRheologyBiotechnologyRenewable fuelsBioenergyHydrolysisChemistryWaste managementFood scienceMaterials scienceAgronomyEngineeringOrganic chemistryBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Alternate energy resources need to be developed to amend for depleting fossil fuel reserves. Lignocellulosic biomass is a globally available renewable feedstock that contains a rich sugar platform that can be converted into bioethanol through appropriate processing. The key steps of the process, pretreatment, enzymatic hydrolysis, and fermentation, have undergone considerable amount of research and development over the past decades nearing the process to commercialization. In order for the commercialization to be successful, the process needs to be operated at high dry matter content of biomass, especially in the enzymatic hydrolysis stage that influences ethanol concentration in the final fermentation broth. Biomass becomes a thick paste with challenging rheology for mixing to be effective. As the biomass consistency increases, yield stress increases which limits efficiency of mixing with conventional stirred tanks. The purpose of this review is to provide features and perspectives on processing of biomass into ethanol. Emphasis is placed on rheology and mixing of biomass in the enzymatic hydrolysis step as one of the forefront issues in the field.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.845
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations102
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreen Processing and SynthesisSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207