Using an artificial neural network to predict the optimal conditions for enzymatic hydrolysis of apple pomace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The enzymatic degradation of lignocellulosic biomass such as apple pomace is a complex process influenced by a number of hydrolysis conditions. Predicting optimal conditions, including enzyme and substrate concentration, temperature and pH can improve conversion efficiency. In this study, the production of sugar monomers from apple pomace using commercial enzyme preparations, Celluclast 1.5L, Viscozyme L and Novozyme 188 was investigated. A limited number of experiments were carried out and then analysed using an artificial neural network (ANN) to model the enzymatic hydrolysis process. The ANN was used to simulate the enzymatic hydrolysis process for a range of input variables and the optimal conditions were successfully selected as was indicated by theR2value of 0.99 and a small MSE value. The inputs for the ANN were substrate loading, enzyme loading, temperature, initial pH and a combination of these parameters, while release profiles of glucose and reducing sugars were the outputs. Enzyme loadings of 0.5 and 0.2 mg/g substrate and a substrate loading of 30% were optimal for glucose and reducing sugar release from apple pomace, respectively, resulting in concentrations of 6.5 g/L glucose and 28.9 g/L reducing sugars. Apple pomace hydrolysis can be successfully carried out based on the predicted optimal conditions from the ANN.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".