MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimization and Characterization of Hydrochar Derived from Shrimp Waste

2017· article· en· W2592467855 on OpenAlexafffund
Shrikalaa Kannan, Yvan Gariépy, G. S. V. Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergy & Fuels · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermochemical Biomass Conversion Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSchlumberger Foundation
KeywordsHydrothermal carbonizationShrimpLignocellulosic biomassBiomass (ecology)Environmentally friendlyPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceSewage sludgeHeat of combustionCarbonizationBiofuelWaste managementChemistrySewage treatmentEnvironmental engineeringCombustionFisheryAgronomyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shrimp, a most consumed seafood, when processed, results in an enormous generation of wastes. Current ways of shrimp waste utilization are uneconomical and far from being environmentally friendly. Alternative sustainable technologies to utilize shrimp wastes completely are essential. Hydrothermal carbonization (HTC) that converts moisture-rich biomass into hydrochar is mostly employed for pure lignocellulosic biowaste. However, the suitability of HTC to produce good quality hydrochar from pure non-lignocellulosic wastes such as shrimp waste is unknown. Here, for the first time, a response surface design guided optimization of microwave hydrothermal carbonization (MHTC) process parameters, holding temperature (150–210 °C) and time (60–120 min), showed that a temperature of ∼184 °C and a time of ∼112 min yielded maximal hydrochar (∼42%). The atomic carbon and ash content, and calorific value of hydrochar were ∼39–49%, ∼21–25%, and 18.26–23.22 MJ/kg, respectively, depending on the MHTC operating conditions. Taken together, these results confirm that MHTC produces hydrochar from shrimp waste of quality comparable to one produced from low-grade lignocellulosic, sewage, and municipal wastes.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations57
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergy & FuelsSame topicThermochemical Biomass Conversion ProcessesFrench-language works237,207