MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protective effects of five surfactants on cellulase in the saccharification of corn stover based on the impeded Michaelis-Menten model

2020· article· en· W3025038241 on OpenAlexaff
Wenjing Shi, Zhicai Zhang, Quanshan Shun, Xiaocui Liu, Chongyang Ding, Huihua Zheng, Feng Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueBioResources · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsAlpha Technologies (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCellulaseCorn stoverHydrolysisChemistryCelluloseReducing sugarBiomass (ecology)AdsorptionFood sciencePulp and paper industryAgronomyOrganic chemistrySugarBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protective effects of five surfactants were investigated relative to the saccharification of lignocellulose using the impeded Michaelis-Menten model (IMM). The yield of total reducing sugar (Ytrs) and cellulase activity were indexed as the effect of surfactant. The IMM was used to fit the correlation between Ytrs and reaction time to obtain the index (Kobs,0) reflecting the accessibility between cellulose and lignocellulose and the comprehensive index (Ki) reflecting cellulase inactivation and non-specific site adsorption. Results showed that the strongest protective effect was found from polyoxyethylene (80) sorbitan monooleate, followed by rhamnolipid. The surfactants protected cellulase from inactivation and nonspecific site adsorption of lignocellulose in the saccharification, leading to enhanced cellulase activity, especially with respect to carboxymethyl cellulase (CMCase) and filter paper enzyme (FPase) activities. The maximum Ytrs was obtained when the CMCase activity was 136.2 U/mL, while the FPase and β-glucosidase activities should be as high and low as possible, respectively, under the optimized condition. These findings lay the foundation for improving the saccharification efficiency of cellulase and reducing the cost of saccharification of biomass cellulose.

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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioResourcesSame topicBiofuel production and bioconversionFrench-language works237,207