Conversion of Lignocellulosic Biomass to Reducing Sugars in High Pressure and Supercritical Fluids: Greener Alternative for Biorefining of Renewables
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Supercritical fluids offer great potential to be employed in lignocellulosic biomass (LCB) fractionation in biorefinery. Supercritical carbon dioxide and water are greener alternatives compared with conventional reagents and have been investigated for the pretreatment and hydrolysis of lignocellulosic biomass. This review is focused on examining the fundamentals that govern the function of supercritical fluids in the pretreatment stage, as well as in the main hydrolysis reaction. Sub/supercritical carbon dioxide is used in pretreatment and sub/supercritical water has been the solvent of choice in hydrolysis of LCB. Significant research has gone into understanding the effect of process parameters such as temperature, pressure, cosolvent, and use of external catalyst on the sugar yield in biorefining of the LCB in supercritical fluids. It is shown that processes with reduced environmental impact and energy consumption can significantly enhance biorefining of LCB at commercial scale. Enzymatic hydrolysis of LCB in supercritical carbon dioxide is a promising approach that can accommodate mild reaction conditions. Developing an understanding of the performance of enzymes in high pressure systems and designing carriers for enzyme immobilization and further recycling is expected to enable one pot pretreatment and hydrolysis and is an important milestone in processing renewable resources for deriving biofuel and value‐added chemicals.
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.
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 it