Assessments of Erianthus arundinaceus as a potential energy crop for bioethanol and biomethane production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Six varieties of Erianthus arundinaceus were assessed as potential energy crops and compared with switchgrass. Bioethanol and biomethane were produced as well. The chemical composition, elemental composition, and heating values were close to those of switchgrass except for a higher cellulose content. All varieties scored higher than 110, suggesting excellent potential as an energy crop. Pretreatment resulted in almost complete hydrolysis and achieved a higher glucose yield. In particular, E33 and E19 yielded 337.4 g and 332.4 g glucose, respectively, from 1.0 kg of feedstock compared with 312.1g/kg for switchgrass. E33, E49, and E19 exhibited a higher ethanol yield of 144.2 g/kg, 146.9 g/kg, and 149.6 g/kg feedstock, respectively, at a solids loading of 15%. No obvious influences could be observed on anaerobic digestion performances. A 16.3%, 14.6%, 14.0%, and 13.1% higher yield on cumulative methane could be obtained from E17, E23, E33, and E6, respectively, compared to switchgrass. Bioethanol and biomethane could be maximally obtained from E19 (6820 kg/ha) and E17 (3916 m3/ha), respectively. Thus, they are specially recommended for bioethanol and biomethane production, respectively. E33 can be suggested as a flexible variety for yielding relatively high bioethanol (6008 kg/ha) and biomethane (3409 m3/ha).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".