Techno-economic evaluation of microwave drying of wheat distiller’s grain with solubles in Saskatchewan.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incorporation of microwave drying system in industry-scale drying of wet wheat distillers grain with solubles (WDGS) was evaluated foreconomic viability under three scenarios: (i) microwave drying, where only microwave energy was used in reducing WDGS from 70% to 10% moisture on wet basis (w.b.); (ii) booster drying, where microwave energy was applied after rotary drying when drying rates began to fall; and (iii) finish drying, where microwave drying was used near the end of the drying process. Complete replacement of the conventional hot air drying system with microwave energy was not economically feasible under the present set of assumptions. Although energy requirement during microwave drying was substantially lower than that of rotary drying, the cost of electricity in providing the microwave energy was seen as a major hindrance. Lower electricity rates, availability of cheaper power sources, and attractive market incentives, such as premium prices for high protein quality wheat DDGS, may be necessary to encourage ethanol producers to invest in the technology. Finish drying, which used the least amount of electrical energy among the three scenarios, was seen as the more economically viable option. Costs associated with the other DDGS production processes also have to be assessed to have a more comprehensive picture of the costs and the benefits of investing on microwave drying technology for protein quality improvement.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".