MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906594064 · doi:10.15376/biores.14.1.hubbe

Lignin recovery from spent alkaline pulping liquors using acidification, membrane separation, and related processing steps: A Review

2019· review· en· W2906594064 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin A. Hubbe, Raimo Alén, Michael Paleologou, Miyuru Kannangara, Jonas Kihlman

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLignin and Wood Chemistry
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaFPInnovations
FundersLakehead UniversityNorth Carolina State University
KeywordsBiorefineryLigninBlack liquorSolubilityKraft paperPulp (tooth)ChemistryPulp and paper industryKraft processMembraneUltrafiltration (renal)Organic chemistryChemical engineeringChromatographyRaw materialEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The separation of lignin from the black liquor generated during alkaline pulping is reviewed in this article with an emphasis on chemistry. Based on published accounts, the precipitation of lignin from spent pulping liquor by addition of acids can be understood based on dissociation equilibria of weak acid groups, which affects the solubility behavior of lignin-related chemical species. Solubility issues also govern lignin separation technologies based on ultrafiltration membranes; reduction in membrane permeability is often affected by conditions leading to decreased solubility of lignin decomposition products and the presence of colloidal matter. Advances in understanding of such phenomena have potential to enable higher-value uses of black liquor components, including biorefinery options, alternative ways to recover the chemicals used to cook pulp, and debottlenecking of kraft recovery processes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations97
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicLignin and Wood ChemistryFrench-language works237,207