Comparison of Biobutanol Production Pathways via Acetone–Butanol–Ethanol Fermentation Using a Sustainability Exergy-Based Metric
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(cassava waste) is presented in this study. The modeling of process topologies involved using Aspen Plus software. Topology 1 generated a product flow rate of 316,477 t/y of butanol, while this value was 367,037 t/y for topology 2. Both processes used a feed flow of 3,131,439 t/y of biomass. This study used seven technical indicators to evaluate both alternatives, which include the return of investment, discounted payback period, global warming potential, renewability material index, inherent safety index, exergy efficiency, and exergy of waste ratio. Otherwise, this study implemented an aggregate index to assess overall sustainability performance. The results revealed that topology 2 presented higher economic normalized scores for evaluated indicators, but the most crucial difference between these designs came from the safety and exergetic indexes. Topology 1 and topology 2 obtained weighted scores equaling to 0.48 and 0.53; therefore, this study found that the second alternative gives a more sustainable design for butanol production under evaluated conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".